INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for
a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 7, 2000, in the Council Chamber
of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results:
Council members CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN
were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department
Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 18, 2000, were
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second
by Mr. Janku.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Upon her request, Mr. Campbell made the motion that Mrs. Crockett
be allowed to abstain from voting on B26-00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. John and a second
by Mr. Janku.

SPECIAL ITEMS
None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS1. Urban Wussler - Deposit Ordinance
Urban Wussler, Bluff Boulevard, asked when the Council would
be having a work session to address the deposit law. He said many people are
anxious to have the law repealed and suggested that it be discussed soon.

2. Wesley Coats, Liz Gooden, Shelly and Ricky
Shields - Walnut Woods.
Mayor Hindman noted that at the end of the meeting the Council
plans to discuss the possibility of CDBG funding being made available to aid
eligible families with relocation expenses.
Wesley Coats, #42 Walnut Woods, explained that the residents
feel that they have been unjustly evicted. He noted that the previous owner had
assured them the park would remain. Mr. Coats said the residents had done a lot
of work and spent their own money on yard and home improvements. He noted that
some tenants were allowed to move in as recently as December 6, 1999. Mr. Coats
stated the property was sold on December 9, 1999.
Lisa Shields, #52 Walnut Woods, asked those present in support
of the neighbors to stand. Approximately three dozen people stood. Ms. Shields
explained that she had moved her son 2,000 miles to live in Columbia because
it is rated one of the best cities in which to live. She felt the sale of this
property had been in the works for several months and that residents should have
been notified of such. Ms. Shields complained that they were being given less
than 60 days to uproot their families and change their entire lives.
Shelly Schultz, #49 Walnut Woods, explained that she recently
bought a second trailer in Walnut Woods in July. Had she known the park was going
to sell, she would never have gone in debt again. Ms. Schultz was concerned about
her children having to change schools.
Sandy Falcon, #36 Walnut Woods, explained that her trailer
is paid for, but is too old to move. She said she would not be facing any credit
problems if she is forced to leave it behind. Ms. Falcon explained that the cost
to move is approximately $1,500 and JPI was offering $300 for those who move
out of the park by March 1.
Mr. Coffman remarked the organization shown by the residents
on this issue was wonderful and he had been touched by what he learned about
their community.

PUBLIC HEARINGSB456-99Voluntary annexation of property
located on the west side of Bearfield Road, approximately 500 feetsouth
of Nifong Boulevard; establishing permanent PUD-6 zoning.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck briefly summarized the request and the recent amendments
being proposed.
Mr. Campbell remarked the Council had expressed continuing
concern about the effectiveness of the proposals for eliminating the storm water
damage that might occur as a result of this proposal. He asked Mr. Patterson
to comment on the current situation.
Mr. Patterson explained that several meetings have taken place
involving his staff, the developer, and neighboring residents. He said the language
in the letter of intent is probably the best the developer can come up with at
this time, and probably the best control the City can provide. However, he could
not give the Council assurance that this development would not result in degradation
of water quality in the nearby watershed. Mr. Patterson noted the Green County
study explicitly outlined that total water quality control cannot be achieved
by exclusively using structural best management practices. It is known that watershed
basin planning and control is essential for quality control. He remarked that
quite frequently, this is beyond the control of an individual developer. In the
absence of that, Mr. Patterson reported that staff is left to deal with each
situation on a case by case basis as development occurs. Which leads to staff's
second concern with this piece of property -- by not having a final plan with
calculations, staff cannot explicitly guarantee water quality protection. Although,
it is the collective opinion of his staff that storm water can be controlled
based on the density and configuration of the proposal. Mr. Patterson commented
that staff is very skeptical the developer can achieve meaningful water quality
protection with the controls currently in place. Mr. Patterson said he did not
want to create false expectations about things that may or may not occur.
Mr. Coffman asked what could be done under a PUD-4 development.
Mr. Patterson said that would result in less impervious areas, thus less storm
water run-off would occur. He pointed out that it is not as much the density
per acre as it is the configuration of it -- i.e., a development consisting of
a cluster of multi-level condo's, townhouses, etc., would allow for a higher
degree of green area for preservation and management practices. Mr. Patterson
said studies have proven that the degree of the impervious area is probably one
of the most critical factors in protecting water quality.
Mayor Hindman reopened the public hearing.
Don Stohldrier, 4016 Glen Eagle, developer of the property,
explained that he brought in a second amendment today wherein the total dwelling
units have been reduced to 160 versus 170. The parking spaces remain at four
spaces per unit, but the maximum impervious area for the development will be
reduced to 35% of the total site when the subdivision is completed. In addition,
he explained how they arrived at the quantitative numbers for off site improvements
to Bearfield Road (they took what was charged to Cambridge Place, on a per unit
price, and applied the same formula).
Jay Gebhardt, a civil engineer with Allstate Consultants,
displayed a preliminary design of the project and explained their strategies
relating to water detention.
Mr. Campbell asked how emergency vehicles would be able to
navigate on the private drives. Mr. Gebhardt reported the driveways will be 24
to 26 feet wide allowing for an appropriate turning radius.
Mr. Coffman asked if the current proposal would keep the maximum
impervious area to 35%. Mr. Gebhardt said it would. At 160 units, he said the
density would be 5.3 units per acre. He noted the 35% included all impervious
areas -- the sidewalk along Bearfield Road, the sidewalks on the public streets,
the driveways into the homes, and the patios and overhangs on the homes.
Mrs. Crockett asked about the average square footage of the
homes. Mr. Gebhardt indicated the minimum size for a home would be 1,300 square
feet with a 400 square foot garage.
Regarding the 73 foot setback from Bearfield Road, Mr. John
asked if that included the right-of-way. Mr. Gebhardt explained that the property
line is in the middle of Bearfield Road and that is the east property line referred
to in the statement of intent. From that property line, they will dedicate a
33 foot half width right-of-way for Bearfield Road. From the right-of-way they
will maintain a 40 foot building line. Mr. Gebhardt noted the neighbors have
asked for an additional 10 feet from the right of way for green space, which
along with the word "practicable", are the only remaining disagreements between
the two groups.
Mrs. Crockett asked about lot sizes. Mr. Gebhardt said a typical
lot is 60 x 90 feet, and because this is a PUD development, the building lines
can be modified.
Mr. Janku asked about peak flows and detention times. Mr.
Gebhardt remarked that issue is addressed in the statement of intent -- the first
flush of water, which is the most contaminated, would be held for a period of
no less than 72 hours. As far as detention time on the quantity, the water would
have to be detained for as long as it takes so that the peak is not exceeded.
Mr. John asked about the parking spaces. Mr. Gebhardt said
the developer has agreed to two car garages, which will also accommodate two
cars in the driveway.
Mr. John said his primary concern has always been controlling
the quality and quantity of the run-off, with the density of the development
being secondary. Mr. Gebhardt reported as he begins his detailed analysis of
the project and it is found that more area is needed for storm water detention,
that could result in the loss of more lots. He understood that perfectly.
Mr. Stohldrier said that was his understanding also. He asked
that the experts be allowed to proceed with the design and analysis of the project,
and if it is proven to work, he would like to keep the density. If it does not
work, they would start peeling away density until acceptable levels are reached.
Bob Broz, University Outreach and Extension, Water Quality
Program Director, explained that he is continuing to work with Mr. Gebhardt and
Mr. Stohldrier on this project. He had been asked to look at whether or not the
structural BMP's they would like to implement would be sufficient for controlling
the storm water quantity and quality. By incorporating several things, Mr. Broz
thought they could show that most of the pollutants could be reduced up to approximately
80%. He suggested that the amount of land disturbance be used to provide a natural
soil base.
Mr. Coffman asked how the level of land disturbance could
be ensured. Mr. Broz replied by increasing the number of the different BMP's,
he believed the contaminant levels could at least be kept at a minimal amount.
He indicated he is basing these comments on an EPA Study.
Mrs. Crockett asked if all of the streets would be curbed
and guttered. Mr. Stohldrier explained that on the public streets there is a
curb on the outside with no curb on the inside. The reason for this is to maximize
the water's contact with grass surfaces. Mr. Janku asked if the private drives
would be curbed and guttered. Mr. Stohldrier said they would not. Mrs. Crockett
asked who would replace the private drives when they start to deteriorate. Mr.
Stohldrier said the subdivision would be managed by a professional company, and
the subdivision homeowners association will maintain the annual dues and escrow
account. Mrs. Crockett asked about maintenance of the city streets. Mr. Stohldrier
responded city streets are just that -- they will be maintained by the City.
He noted these streets will be constructed to the same standards as any other
public street, with the exception of the grassy median.
Clifford Balmer, an environmental engineer, explained that
he has been working in storm water quality and quantity management as a professional
for about 15 years. He agreed with comments made by Mr. Patterson. He believed
the public works staff have a very good understanding of the potential water
quality impact that this project could cause. Mr. Balmer took exception to some
of the remarks made by Mr. Broz with respect to the efficiency of best management
practices. He reported that 80% efficiency is possible if one is looking at a
two week detention time. In this case, there will only be a 72 hour storage period.
He thought 160 homes on 34 acres is too dense for this area. Mr. Balmer suggested
a higher density on the portion of the tract that is less sensitive, which will
improve the water quality by protecting the most critical areas of the site.
Mr. John asked how much area would be needed for retention
or detention basins. Mr. Balmer explained that if one wants high removal efficiencies,
then large basins are necessary. When there are 12 acres of impervious area,
that does not leave much room on a 34 acre site to put in a basin large enough
to achieve high efficiency pollutant removal.
Mayor Hindman asked if it would be possible to have no degradation
to the watershed while still allowing for development. To have zero degradation,
Mr. Balmer said it would be very difficult. He explained that one of the reasons
the creek is staying so clean right now is because the Columbia Environmental
Research Center is pumping a lot of clean well water down through that watershed
every day. He noted that can change quickly when the run-off increases.
Mr. Campbell asked about continued damage to stream banks
exposed to high levels of run-off and how the water should be distributed to
avoid that from occurring. Mr. Balmer explained the primary way to achieve that
is to knock the peaks off the hydrographs through detention so a portion of the
run-off is stored from a storm event for a period of time and then released slowly
through a dam and spillway. He pointed out the stream banks are also subject
to loss from prolonged flows.
Mr. Campbell asked if there was a guide to be used as to where
the line should be drawn as to the length of detention. Mr. Balmer said 72 hours
is a good place to start, but if cleaner water is the goal, it would have to
be detained a lot longer than that. He reported more of that water would have
to be allowed to infiltrate into the soil profile rather than just run-off --
which means reducing the impervious area.
Mr. Janku asked if the 80% figure that has been mentioned
for the percentage of removal is a good number. Mr. Balmer said the EPA study
had monitored a number of storm water best management practices. He explained
they came up with a range of removal efficiencies for suspended solids, nitrogen,
phosphorous, pathogens, and heavy metals. Mr. Balmer reported those ranges bounce
all over, but for retention basins for suspended solids there is a range of 50-80%
removal efficiency. When going to pathogens, there is less than 30% removal.
Mr. Beck asked what would happen in the instance when there
is a two-inch rain on top of already frozen ground covered with snow. He asked
how the EPA would deal with that infiltration. Mr. Balmer said none of the run-off
would infiltrate. Mr. Beck observed that is frequently overlooked in design.
John Blakemore , 4807 Bearfield Road, agreed with the staff
in that the City does not have the guidelines needed to adequately deal with
a situation like this. He felt the staff has been left in a weak position for
evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed storm water control features based
on this development. Mr. Blakemore asked the Council to reject this request and
direct the staff to develop clear and reasonable objective standards for storm
water quality and quantity.
Michael Goldschmidt, 710 W. Dripping Springs Road, spoke on
behalf of The Friends of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. He explained their
main concern is the quality and quantity of storm water having a negative impact
on the watershed and the park. He stated until the facts can be determined regarding
quality and quantity, this issue should be tabled.
Fred vom Saal, 4679 S. Bearfield, spoke about the need for
an additional green space setback to absorb storm water flowing toward Bearfield
Road. He noted there is no retention area in the southeast corridor, and below
the property there are no drainage possibilities on Bearfield to control erosion.
Mr. vom Saal was also concerned about traffic stacking up on Bearfield.
Thomas Moran, 413 W. Walnut, Acting Chair of the Ozark Sierra
Club, agreed with Mr. Goldschmidt's comments and asked that Rock Bridge State
Park be protected.
Tony Davis, 4655 Rock Quarry Road, encouraged the Council
to develop some kind of a resolution that can be put in place so no one will
have to go through this process again.
Mr. Stohldrier spoke to the comments regarding water flowing
down toward Bearfield Road. He pointed out there is an existing drain pipe and
whatever drains down Bearfield Road will go under the road and off to the east.
Mr. Janku asked what creek the storm water ends up in. Mr. Gebhardt said it flows
into Clear Creek. Mr. Stohldrier commented it had been stated that the storm
water running down Bearfield Road will have nowhere to go -- which is incorrect.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku asked about the private drives. Mr. Patterson explained
residents would be sharing a driveway and it would be entirely on private property
under no control of the City. Some of the immediate observations staff made in
looking at this situation is that some homeowners will have to carry their trash
more than 200 feet as the City does not go down private drives for pick-up. He
said that is in addition to what other problems there may be with fire and other
emergency vehicles. Mr. Patterson also pointed out there would be no pedestrian
ways down to the public street if there is only a driveway.
Mr. John asked if the staff thought they could manage the
storm water quality and quantity. Mr. Patterson said based on what they know,
staff has very serious doubts that an effective storm water quality management
plan can be put in place with this type of configuration. He said they have to
acknowledge the fact that development will have an effect. Mr. Patterson added
there are ways to minimize that with the best management practices structural
solutions, but it is very important that the City go to the next step and conduct
a watershed study to deal with this area on a basin method, not just an individual
property as they are being forced to do now.
Mr. Coffman said some thresholds have been identified as to
when the stream health can become impacted and when it becomes degraded. Thus
far, all the developer has been able to do as far as the impervious area on the
chart is 35%. He said that is clearly above the threshold and is a degraded amount.
Mr. Coffman felt he would be more comfortable with impervious coverage that would
at least bring it down into the impacted area.
Mayor Hindman asked if the 35% takes into consideration the
best management practices. Mr. Patterson explained that the impervious area impact
could be minimized with those practices to a point where the chart effect could
be reduced. If reading the chart correctly, he thought it refers to the impact
of impervious area on the conditions without imposing them. Then again, Mr. Patterson
said when considering the watershed basin in its entirety, anything over 10-15%
is a degradation. He remarked the impact could be reduced with a series of best
management practices, the proper methods for the proper location and development
size. Even with those in place, they would still be, at best in some areas, collecting
only 80% of the contaminants contained in the run-off.
Mr. Campbell said the fact that Mr. Patterson was not comfortable
with the present situation was an important fact. Before moving on, Mr. Campbell
felt the City needed to get some things in place. At the end of the meeting,
he plans to ask staff to review the Springfield ordinance as a policy for Columbia
to use. Mr. Campbell spoke of the importance of developing guidelines for this
whole basin/stream area so developers will know what they will be facing when
something like this comes up.
Mayor Hindman asked if Phase II of the storm water study is
underway. Mr. Patterson said that it is, and added that a portion of it involves
the partnership agreements being worked on by Mr. Davis. He said staff felt it
was important to move ahead with it so the City will have some influence on the
state policies currently being developed.
Mr. Janku shared in the feeling that Columbia needs to move
toward more dense development. He spoke about it being different than just the
minimization of lot sizes with the type of single family development that is
traditionally seen. Mr. Janku thought that may be one of the problems with this
development -- this proposal achieves the higher density in the traditional format
rather than adopting a more flexible approach that the PUD process would allow.
He was hopeful the neighborhood organizations will realize that would be to their
benefit. Without additional information, Mr. Janku said he could not support
the present proposal.
Mrs. Crockett commented that she was most concerned about
the increased traffic this development will generate on Bearfield Road. She thought
it would be hard to manage with just a stop sign. Mrs. Crockett said she could
not support the request.
Mr. John said the Council needs to be careful to allow only
good, quality developments. He believed the City should be able to provide developers
with rules to meet specific standards. In this case, the City does not have those
rules in place which is putting the developer behind the eight ball because we
cannot tell him what is expected.
Mr. Coffman said residents need to realize that development
is going to occur and that there will be some impact. It was his opinion that
the impact would be irreversible in this case.
Ms. Crayton was concerned about the traffic on Bearfield Road.
Mayor Hindman believed in this situation the developer purchased
a piece of land that is ideal for development, and Mr. Stohldrier had no real
warning that he would run into the problems he has in connection with this issue.
Although development is a significant part of the economy, that should not come
at the cost of sacrificing natural resources like Clear Creek, Little Bonne Femme
Creek, or Rock Bridge State Park and Devil's Ice Box. Mayor Hindman agreed that
the City needs to establish water quality/quantity control guidelines for developers
to follow.
B456-99 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
Bill defeated.

B11-00Authorizing storm drainage improvements
in The Hamlet Subdivision; authorizing an agreement withWestbury
Joint Venture and Hamlet Homes Association; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this project is located in southwest
Columbia. He asked Mr. Patterson to describe the proposal.
Mr. Patterson summarized that this project has been before
the Council several times in different stages. He reported that an agreement
has finally been reached with all parties involved. The project will consist
of reconstruction of the main drainage channel and will be done using a variety
of different treatments including a grass lined channel and some rip rap section
and interlocking block. The total cost of the design is $182,500 as estimated
by the City staff. The agreement calls for the City paying $97,000 of the project
cost with the remainder to be paid by various property owners and landowners
adjacent to and inside The Hamlet Subdivision.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Clayton Lee, 4500 Shorum Court, President of the Homeowners
Association, asked the Council to support this bill so as to provide residents
with a permanent remedy to the storm drainage problems. Mr. Lee noted that Mr.
Patterson and his staff worked with the neighborhood to develop a first rate
plan.
Rob Murray, 4410 Sussex Drive, thanked Mr. Patterson and his
staff for working with the residents. He said the plan is a good one and asked
the Council to support it.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B11-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B22-00Voluntary annexation of property
located on the west side of State Route 763, north of Smiley Lane,extended;
establishing permanent zoning.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this property consists of 240 acres and
multiple zoning categories are being requested. He reported staff recommended
approval of the request as did the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 5-4 vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices at 901 E. Broadway,
spoke on behalf of the applicant, Tom Bass. Mr. Beckett explained the property
to be immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the City and immediately
north of the proposed Smiley Lane. He explained that the process started a few
years ago when the City told the Bass family they were going to install some
sewers along Cow Branch. Because the sewers would serve the Bass's land, staff
asked that they annex into the City. An annexation and initial zoning request
was submitted in 1997 that included all 240 acres being zoned industrial. The
request was met with a lot of opposition at the Planning and Zoning Commission
level, so the applicant withdrew the request. Mr. Beckett explained Mr. Bass
came to the City last fall with another zoning request, which was again subsequently
withdrawn because of concerns voiced by adjacent property owners.
Mr. Beckett reported what is before the Council tonight is
a well-coordinated zoning plan. He noted the requested zoning is a precise match
with what is south of Smiley Lane. Mr. Beckett pointed out that Mr. Bass has
expressed a willingness to participate in the construction of Smiley Lane if
his property is annexed and zoned in a fashion which he can accept. He added
that the eastern 80 acres of this tract is currently zoned M-L in the County,
which allows for a substantially more intense industrial use than a controlled
industrial district in the City. By the same token, the existing commercial zoning
would also be more intense and substantially less controlled than a commercial
development would be in the City. His point was that the request is clearly a
down zoning for the eastern 80 acres. In addition, Mr. Beckett explained that
a large pumping station will be located on the west end of this property which
the applicant had not been aware of until last Friday. He pointed out that Mr.
Bass has already been approached about the possibility of a green space easement
along Cow Branch through the northernmost 80 acres of the tract. Mr. Beckett
reported Mr. Bass will favorably consider this proposal.
Mr. Campbell said he was troubled about a number of issues
regarding this rezoning request. One was the industrial area would not be located
on a major arterial road. He asked how it would be accessed. Mr. Beckett replied
it would have to be accessed from an interior street that comes off of either
Smiley or 763, or possibly Providence Road if it is ever extended to Brown School
Road.
Mr. Janku said a question that came up at the Planning and
Zoning meeting relating to other existing developments with multiple access points
causing problems on Smiley Lane. He asked how the applicant planned to deal with
that issue. Mr. Beckett said there are no restrictions for access points on collector
streets, although it was not necessarily a good development practice. He noted
there are numerous commercial developments in Columbia that have streets that
come off of major thoroughfares that serve more than one C-3 use. He gave Route
AC as an example where one entrance serves a bank, a fast food establishment,
and an auto parts store. Mr. Beckett commented the applicant understood that
street entrances would have to be coordinated with the development that is occurring
to the south of Smiley Lane. He pointed out that if Mr. Bass does not assure
a good traffic plan through the area, they would be shooting themselves in the
foot.
Mr. Campbell noted that C-3 zoning is being requested adjacent
to an existing R-1 zone on the west side of the property. He asked about what
kind of transition is being planned between the two zones. Mr. Beckett responded
the marketplace will dictate that the C-3 use cannot be incompatible with the
residential area. If it is, the applicant would not be able to sell those lots.
Mr. Beckett noted that Mr. Bass's property is located across the street from
a C-3 area, that is located next to an R-1 area. He said this situation is no
different than what lies south of the road. Mr. Campbell asked about the plans
for green space in the area. Mr. Beckett said he did not know that the applicant
had gotten that far yet because he has been wrestling with annexation and zoning
for two years. He said platting lots and providing for park land were not things
that had been specifically addressed. Mr. Beckett pointed out a rather wide corridor
on the map that does not lie with any of the lots. He said the obvious use for
this is green space. Mr. Beckett indicated Mr. Bass could address this further.
Tom Bass, 909 Westover, read a letter confirming his intentions to grant a green
space easement along Cow Branch. He read that if his property is annexed and
zoned in accordance with his request, he will work diligently with the City to
determine what is most advantageous as far as a green space easement is concerned.
Mr. Bass explained there is a meadow, four to five acres in size, in the flood
plain that would make an excellent City park.
Dan Rowvitch, a Clearview Subdivision resident, reported that
he had not spoken to any resident in the Clearview Subdivision who had been notified
of this request. He spoke in opposition of the zoning and said nothing should
be done until Brown School Road is improved.
Bill Mills, explained that he has 14 acres of property that
is contiguous with the Bass property on the west. He complimented the staff and
Mr. Bass for their interactions with the neighbors. Mr. Mills noted that property
owners within 1000 feet of the subject tract were notified. He remarked that
when Smiley Lane is extended, that will alleviate a lot of the traffic problems
currently experienced on Brown School Road and Creasy Springs Road. Mr. Mills
said that many of the residents felt this development would enhance the value
of their properties.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku asked about plans for street improvements in this
area. Mr. Patterson explained that staff has been in contact with area property
owners regarding the extension of Smiley Lane through the Bass property. In addition
to that, he noted that the City sent a letter to the Boone County Public Works
Department requesting a joint alignment study on Oberfelt Road. Furthermore,
staff has met with some of the property owners in the area trying to define a
corridor. Mr. Patterson reported these projects are on the CIP long-range plan.
Mr. Campbell thought this project could be much better than
it is at the present time. He is concerned about an industrial area not having
access to a major road. Mr. Campbell felt commercial areas should be readily
accessible to the best transportation routes. He was concerned about creating
another Route B or Clark Lane situation along Smiley Lane.
Mr. John noted that the Long Range Major Thoroughfare Plan
shows controlled industrial areas on Providence Road, a major north/south corridor
equal to, if not greater than 763. He observed that an M-C zone, by its very
nature, is supposed to provide a buffer to residential developments. He noted
there is high density residential planned in the Herigon tract. In addition,
Mr. John remarked that C-P had been recommended on the Herigon tract, but it
was actually zoned C-3. He could not justify the City requiring C-P zoning on
Mr. Bass's tract, which is immediately adjacent to the Herigon tract. Looking
at the long-range plans for road improvements, he felt it would play out well.
Mr. Janku agreed with Mr. Campbell in that he thought it would
have been better for the tract to the west to be zoned C-1, or something less
than C-3. However, he noted this is a relatively deep C-3 zoning, not a strip
zone. As the area develops, Mr. Janku was hopeful to see an attempt to put together
a mix of uses that allows the interaction the Council has been looking for.
Mr. John noted a problem usually only occurs when an area
is zoned commercial after a residential development is already in place. When
the commercial zoning comes first, future residents know what is planned for
the area.
B22-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: CAMPBELL.
Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B25-00Establishing permanent A-1 zoning
on property located on the south side of Vawter School Road,between
Scott Boulevard and Old Mill Creek Road.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the zoning request on this ten acre
tract of land located in south Columbia is being recommended for approval by
both the City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B25-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B26-00Changing street names within
Quail Creek Subdivision as follows: "Coho Drive" to "Rainbow TroutDrive" and "Rainbow
Trout Court" to "Coho Court".
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that approval had been recommended by both
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff.
Mr. Campbell asked why a public hearing is required for things
as minor as this. Mr. Beck said it is required by ordinance. There was a discussion
about charging fees for street name changes.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B26-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE.
ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)Federal
Transit Administration Capital Grants - Replacement of Transit Vehicles.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this public hearing is required as
part of the federal grant process program. The grant would allow for the replacement
of 13 transit buses. He noted that money had been budgeted this year for the
local portion of the match.
In addition to any comments received this evening, Mr. Patterson
noted that his department would accept written statements or e-mail statements.
Mr. Patterson explained that the federal government will pay
80% of the replacement cost of the buses, with the total cost being $3.3 million
for the 13 buses. He said the local money, $660,000, was appropriated by the
City Council and has been incorporated into the CIP.
Mr. Patterson reported that 13 buses are being replaced, this
will not allow for the expansion of the fleet. Four of the buses being replaced
are 1964-66 models with more than 500,000 miles on them; five of them are 1982
models, and the rest are 1979 models. Mr. Patterson reported they are replacing
an old, extremely unreliable fleet.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the replacements would be large buses.
Mr. Patterson responded it is a mix of 30 to 40 feet buses, and a large portion
of them are needed for replacement of the City's shuttle service at the University.
He noted they would be used primarily for that purpose.
Mayor Hindman asked about the possibility of considering electric
buses. Mr. Patterson replied that may be a possibility for future purchases.
He explained that the lead time on buses is very long. Mr. Patterson added that
these buses were actually bid last spring.
Mr. Janku asked if this replacement would allow the City to
change the shuttle service with the University. Mr. Patterson said what they
have been able to do with the FTA is to incorporate it as part of the public
transportation service in order to be eligible for grants. He said this would
allow them a flexibility to incorporate and integrate it better with our system.
Mrs. Crockett asked how many City buses were in operation.
Mr. Patterson said there about 16 in full time service, including the University
shuttle. In addition, he said there is the para-transit fleet.
Mr. Beck noted that the local match funds come from the transportation
sales tax.
Mr. Campbell asked how many new buses were purchased a few
years ago. Mr. Patterson replied there were eight of the low floor small vehicles.
He commented these buses have exceeded what is determined to be useful life.
He said they will be going into standby status when the new buses are obtained.
Mr. Campbell asked about the large ones. Mr. Patterson said there are four of
these and they are still on line.
Mrs. Crockett asked about the age of the small buses. Mr.
Patterson said they were about five years old. He explained that these are not
heavy transit vehicles, simply conventional truck chassis. He further explained
that transit vehicles are programed to last 200,000 or more miles, the small
ones have a useful life of about 90,000 miles.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Patterson noted that a transcript would be provided the
FTA.

OLD BUSINESSB13-00Authorizing an agreement with
Cunningham + Richards Johnson Architects to conduct a feasibility studyof
the use of the Wabash Station as a transportation hub.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck stated that three firms had been interviewed for
this project with a local firm being recommended. He noted a member from the
Historic Preservation Commission also sat in on the review. He explained the
task to be an evaluation of the area around the building. Mr. Beck noted that
they will look at the site again as a transportation hub possibly for taxis,
and cross-state/cross-country buses. He reported the building itself needs major
maintenance work. Mr. Beck pointed out that the parking utility maintenance is
located in part of the building. Once the public building program gets going
again, he said they would like to move the maintenance operation out of it.
Mr. Janku commented he was glad to see they are considering
the entire site, including the old warehouses. Mayor Hindman agreed.
Mayor Hindman said he would be interested in seeing a copy
of the old report that was previously sent to the Council regarding the possibility
utilizing the City's railroad to provide some type of light rail transit between
Centralia and Columbia.
B13-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B19-00Adding a new utilities engineer
position in the Water and Light Department; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Due to a recent retirement and an increasing work load in
the water utility, Mr. Beck said that two engineers are needed to catch up with
some of the work load.
Mr. Coffman noted that work space is a problem in Water and
Light and asked how spread out their operations are. Mr. Malon said the entire
engineering staff is located across the street on the top floor where they are
quite crowded. He said they will be transferring one employee out to the Heuchan
Building which will make some room. Even at that, he said it will be tight.
B19-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B20-00Amending Chapter 11 of the City
Code as it relates to swimming pools; adopting the "City of ColumbiaGuide
for Swimming Pool Design and Operation".
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck reported this amendment came about due to a drowning
in a local pool. He asked the Director of Health to explain the process for this
proposed amendment.
Ms. Browning explained that the Water Safety Task Force, a
sub-committee of the Board of Health, reviewed the current ordinance and made
some really strong recommendations that she felt improved the public health and
safety of the City's pools. She noted the ordinance had not been updated since
1972, and she explained a number of changes have been made in public swimming
pool design since then. Ms. Browning reported this amendment would bring City
regulations into alignment with the BOCA Codes which were revised in 1998. She
commented that her department inspects/regulates about 100 pools in the City
of Columbia, and very minimal changes will be a result of this amendment. Ms.
Browning stated that public hearing notices were sent out to all pool owners,
and only two people attended the hearing, both of whom supported the changes.
B20-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
CRAYTON, JANKU CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE.
Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B24-00Vacating an unused, 15-foot
wide public alley which runs in an east/west direction and is locatedbetween
North Garth Avenue and Grand Avenue, and between Sexton Road and Fourth Avenue.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this unused alley was platted in 1904.
A request had been received by a property owner along the alley requesting the
vacation of it.
Mr. Hancock reported staff contacted the utility providers
regarding the necessity of the alley to their long-term plans for utility location.
He explained that staff recommended approval of the vacation based on the fact
that no utilities are planned in this area. Mr. Hancock pointed out that staff
is normally cautious about recommending the vacation of any right-of-way.
Mayor Hindman asked if the City could vacate the alley yet
retain the easements. Mr. Boeckmann responded when land is vacated, the easement
cannot be retained. Mr. Hancock pointed out that staff has had to get replacement
easements for right-of-way that has been vacated in the past.
Shane Bozaller, 14 Fourth Avenue, explained that he had written
the initial request for the vacation based on the maintenance of the alley. He
reported this property has not been maintained, except by certain property owners.
Mr. Bozaller said Mr. McNab had asked him this evening to withdraw the request
because of his future development along Sexton Road and the possible of the use
of the alley way.
Tom McNab, 104 Clinkscales, said he did not know if this alley
way is needed or not, and that he is in the process of working with the neighborhood
association regarding plans for this area. At some point in the future he thought
the alley may need to be vacated, but because of the discussions and ongoing
meetings regarding the ultimate disposition of the property, he felt this vacation
was premature. Mr. McNab asked the Council to wait to see what happens with the
rest of the property.
Bob Kunkler, 4403 Glen Eagle, explained that he owns the house
at 16 Fourth Avenue and he is opposed to the vacation for two reasons. He noted
the City is in the process of acquiring some easements and right-of-way on Fourth
Street for a reconstruction project. And secondly, in the event the City would
vacate the alley, he was concerned about possible contamination problems that
he would become responsible for cleaning up. Mr. Kunkler said if Mr. McNab wants
to do something with the land, he would be glad to give him his seven and one-half
feet. He asked the Council to deny this vacation request.
There was discussion as to who is responsible for maintaining
alleys. Mr. Beck noted that residents cut weeds on right-of-way that is not used
by the City. He reported if the alley is just a paper street and not used by
the City, Mr. Beck suspected the City could require the property owners to maintain
them.
Mr. John said he did not think the City should be vacating
alleys. He remarked if all of the affected property owners do not agree with
the vacation, the City should not approve it.
Mr. Hancock indicated he would like to take that as a policy
directive - that all adjoining property owners should be party to the application.
He reported that currently anyone can request a vacation of an alley.
B24-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. Bill defeated.

B29-00Approving the final plat of
Providence Hill; authorizing a performance contract.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Hancock noted a green space trail easement on the property
dedicated in lieu of a sidewalk variance was requested and approved by the Council.
Christopher Stormer, 5421 Dalcrosse, spoke on behalf of the
developer. He restated their intentions to place the trail easement along Providence
Road. He said they have been completing some foundation work and construction
that is necessary prior to the construction of such. Weather permitting, Mr.
Stormer reported they are now ready to put the trail in.
Mr. Beck said someone had asked him about the grading. He
asked if this would be something feasible to grade for trail purposes. Mr. Stormer
said it would be. In preparing for their buildings, he said their fill got a
little further than they intended for it to be, but that is what would be addressed
when leveling the area for the trail.
B29-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions
were read by the Clerk.

B12-00Amending Chapter 14 of the City
Code to prohibit parking on both sides of Pannell Street from WilkesBoulevard
to its southern terminus.B14-00Accepting various easements and
quit claim deeds for sewer and utility purposes.B15-00Authorizing a promissory note
in connection with a Missouri Department of Natural Resourcesenergy-savings
project loan; appropriating funds.B16-00 Authorizing application for membership
in the Western Systems Power Pool; appropriating funds.B17-00Appropriating funds for improvements
to the COLT highway-rail crossing signal system at BrownStation
Road.B18-00Accepting easements for water
main purposes.B21-00Authorizing an agreement with
the Missouri Department of Health for HIV/STD prevention andcounseling
services.B27-00Approving the final plat of Thornbrook
Subdivision, Plat No. 4; authorizing a performance contract.B28-00Approving the final plat of Spring
Creek, Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.B30-00Amending Chapter 8 of the City
Code to correct the boundaries of the 4th and 5th Wards.B31-00Granting a conveyance of water
line and water line easements to Consolidated Public Water SupplyDistrict
No. 1.R15-00Setting a public hearing: voluntary
annexation of property located on the west side of Lake of theWoods
Road, north of Evergreen Acres Subdivision.R16-00Setting a public hearing: construction
of water main serving Vanderveen Plaza, Plat 2.R17-00Setting a public hearing: construction
of water main serving Breezewood Estates, Plat 1.R18-00Setting a public hearing: improvements
to Again Street Park.R19-00Setting a public hearing: levying
special assessments for 1999 street maintenance work.R20-00Authorizing an amendment to the
contract with the Missouri Department of Transportation foradditional
FTA planning funds.R21-00Authorizing a change to an agreement
to be executed with Jeffrey E. Smith Investment Company,L.C.R22-00Authorizing a grant application
to the Missouri Arts Council.R23-00Authorizing the City to select
the cash option for the City's shares in the Sun Life of Canada'sdemutualization
process.R24-00Authorizing an agreement with
Help at Home, Inc. for homemaker/personal and respite care services.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared
enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESSR25-00Authorizing an amendment to the
interconnection agreement with Boone County Regional SewerDistrict
for the construction of the C-6 trunk sewer line.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a DNR requirement that the
Sewer District must own the line as long as they have a loan against it.
The vote on R25-00 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R26-00Disapproving the tract split
of property located south and west of the southwest corner of Rice Roadand
Ballenger Lane.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Hancock explained that this is an appeal of his decision
to disapprove a tract split application. He explained that this is a procedure
outlined in the subdivision regulations for subdividing property prior to development
without using a subdivision plat. He said this is the first one he can remember
receiving an appeal on. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council
deny the tract split request by a vote of 6-2. Mr. Hancock explained that staff
is hesitant to approve tract splits in areas like this where development is imminent.
He felt the subdivision of property would be better served, as would the City,
by an actual subdivision plat.
Mr. John noted under the tract split ordinance there are three
things that have to be met: the property must not be divided into more than five
parcels; adequate provisions must be made for the future subdivision; and it
must not adversely affect development. He asked if there was a condition in this
case that had not been met. Mr. Hancock responded what has not been met is the
definition of a tract split and the real essence of the tract split -- that it
is not to be used in the case where development is eminent. He explained that
is the case in this situation. He noted that the subdivision regulations are
not necessarily clear on tract splits, and he never saw one until he came to
Columbia. Mr. Hancock added that the subdivision regulations are full of stipulations
requiring property to be subdivided before its sale or development. He commented
that the purpose of a tract split is for the circumstance of someone owning a
large farm or holding, and the individual simply wants to convey a piece of the
tract to an heir. Mr. Hancock stated its purpose is not to allow a subdivision
in a developed and developing part of town.
Brian Dollar, a land surveyor doing business at 1033 E. Walnut,
asked the Council to approve the tract split. He explained that the property
belongs to a retired couple living next door to their mother. He said the couple
would like to sell four acres to the rear of the property to a developer. The
developer would do the platting and make the required improvements with the two
families continuing to live in their homes. Mr. Dollar felt that the property
meets the ordinance requirements for a tract split. He read from Section 25-23,
Paragraph A, that referred to the intent of a tract split. In this case, the
property owner wants to separate the parcel, not for development, until it is
properly platted and the improvements are made. He felt there is a disconnection
between staff policy and the actual written words of the ordinance. When staff
essentially denies all tract splits, Mr. Dollar contended a modification has
been made to the subdivision regulations. He believed that to be a legislative
act and it should have to be approved by the Council, not the staff.
Since the property will be sold to a developer, Mr. Campbell
asked why the applicant could not just go through the normal replatting process.
Mr. Dollar responded that to do so would require some improvements to be made
to the homes that are presently on the site, and the applicant does not want
to do so at this point in time. He explained a public sewer was extended across
the property five years ago, and the applicant had been given 30 days to connect
to it -- which they did. However, if the property is replatted, the applicant
would be required to supply sewer services to that tract as well. Mr. Dollar
also spoke about the applicant being required to construct a sidewalk along Ballenger
Lane to comply with City regulations. He reported the applicant would be forced
to request a variance from this requirement as the existing trees that would
have to be removed to build the sidewalk provides a barrier to the noise generated
by the traffic traveling along this road.
Mayor Hindman asked about the improvements that would have
to be made. Mr. Hancock said he did not know anything about the applicant having
to make improvements to the houses, but he acknowledged they would have to comply
with the subdivision regulation requirements, including sidewalks, that would
be applied to every lot in the plat, as is imposed upon anyone who replats property.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Patterson about the sewer requirements.
Mr. Patterson said subdividing land would require that there be public sewer
access to each lot. He said that is why staff felt a subdivision was the proper
way to address the issues. Mr. Patterson explained the ordinance clearly states
that tract splits are not intended for development purposes. The only reason
for not wanting to subdivide is to avoid the improvements, which he said the
Council can waive if there is justifiable reasons at the time it comes in. Unless
that is done, he said there is the potential for creating lots without sewer
and without access. He remarked that is why the tract split is not an appropriate
tool in this situation. Mr. Patterson referred to Section 25-3 which defines
a tract split. He read the definition as being, "any subdivision which involves
division of a tract of land for sale or transfer, but not for development, containing
more than five tracts fronting on existing state, county, or city streets or
highways."
Mr. John agreed with Mr. Dollar and said if the City does
not want to approve tract splits anymore, for whatever reason, the ordinance
should be changed.
Mr. Campbell believed that on highways such as Route PP, the
Council has routinely approved variances on sidewalks when there would be no
connection. He guessed that in this case if the Council received a waiver request,
it would be granted.
A discussion ensued as to the size of the property and whether
the ordinance was even applicable.
The vote on R26-00 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: JOHN. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:

R27-00Establishing the Public Building
Development & Finance Committee.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that a study had been done in the mid-ninety's
which arrived at the square footage needs of City buildings. He said the study
found there was quite a bit of overcrowding in many of the buildings. Since that
study, Mr. Beck reported a policy was adopted regarding the expansion of the
half block south of the parking plaza whenever the land became available. He
noted the City has already purchased the Farm and Home Building and half of the
building just north of it. In addition, the Armory Building became available
and was subsequently purchased.
Mr. Beck commented that last year, when the Council discussed
the City's overall Capital Improvement Plan, it included the need for future
city office space. The five year finance plan that was discussed with the Council
included an option for funding future space needs without the need for a ballot
issue. Mr. Beck explained the Council was informed of the overcrowded conditions
in the Gentry Building, the Howard Building, and the Police/JCIC Building (that
also currently houses the Water & Light administration offices on its top
level), and other public buildings in the one-half block south of the parking
plaza.
Mr. Beck reported the purpose of this legislation will authorize
the Mayor, after Council consultation, to appoint a committee to work with a
space study consultant to determine current and future space needs, review options
as to where the space needs could best be met, and come up with cost estimates
and the best finance plan to be utilized to provide the space. In the short term,
Mr. Beck indicated one option the committee could look at is the possibility
of renting space in the central business district area.
Mr. Coffman asked if short term rental was something the Committee
should be looking into. Mr. Beck said he thought the staff would bring back to
the Council a list of potential rental areas.
Mr. Beck recommended that the proposed Committee have a representative
from the Finance Advisory Committee on it.
Mr. Coffman pointed out that this did not include the Health
Department and its overcrowded needs.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that the staff be directed to
look at the alternatives of renting office space to relieve congestion. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The vote on R27-00 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless
otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B32-00Authorizing construction of
a 12-inch water main serving Vanderveen Plaza, Plat 2; authorizingpayment
of differential costs; appropriating funds.B33-00Authorizing construction of an
8-inch water main serving Breezewood Estates, Plat 1; authorizingpayment
of differential costs; appropriating funds.B34-00Approving engineer's report;
accepting a conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs forwater
main project in Richland Heights, Plat 2.B35-00Accepting easements for water
utility purposes.B36-00Authorizing an agreement with
the Columbia School District for use of a portion of the City's fiberoptic
cable system.B37-00Authorizing an agreement with
Show-Me Power Technologies, L.L.C. to lease a dark fiber pair onCity's
fiber optic cable system.B38-00Authorizing a right of use permit
with the University of Missouri for the installation of bus benchesand
shelters.B39-00Approving the final report and
authorizing the issuance of special assessments for the 1999 streetmaintenance
work.B40-00Calling for bids for the construction
of the Bear Creek Recreation Trail, Phase III.B41-00Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
to prohibit parking along portions of Creekwood Parkway.B42-00Authorizing change orders to
the contract with Prost Builders for the Armory Building renovationproject.B43-00Authorizing an agreement with
the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission to providefunding
for the bridge over Bear Creek Trail Phase 1; appropriating funds.B44-00Authorizing construction of improvements
to Again Street Park.B45-00Vacating a portion of a utility
easement located within The Village of Cherry Hill, Plat 3.B46-00Approving the final plat of Eastland
Hills; Plat XI; authorizing a performance contract.B47-00Approving the final plat of Heritage
Estates, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.B48-00Approving the final plat of Vanderveen
Crossing, Plat No. 4; authorizing a performance contract.B49-00Rezoning property located on
the south side of Clark Lane, across from Ballenger Place fromDistricts
A-1, R-2 and O-P to District C-P.B50-00Rezoning four tracts of land
located west of Scott Boulevard, along both sides of Smith Drive, fromDistricts
R-1, A-1, and PUD-10 to Districts C-P, O-P, and PUD-12.B51-00Appropriating hotel/motel gross
receipts tax funds for advertising and marketing.

(B)Water Resources Supply Planning.
Mr. Beck commented that a presentation had been given at the
pre-Council dinner this evening regarding water resources supply planning. He
explained that a consultant study had been completed which indicated that last
year there was a 22% increase in water usage. He said the Water and Light Department
is having some design work done on a high speed pump to add capacity to Columbia.
Mr. Beck remarked staff would bring plans back to the Council so work could begin
this summer.

(C)Evergreen Acres Subdivision - 80-acre
Point Sewer Request.
Mr. Beck explained the location of this request is in the
Hominy drainage area. He stated the sewer line would be about 900 feet in length
with an estimated cost of $150,000 which would come from the sewer utility fund.
It was noted this tract has been annexed into the City.
Mr. Patterson noted that the interconnection agreement would
need to be modified with the Boone County Sewer District. He did not anticipate
a problem.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to
proceed with plans and specifications. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett
and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)Kersten & Rhonda Carlson -
80-acre Point Sewer Request.
Mr. Patterson explained that this property is not eligible
for annexation as it is not contiguous to the City limits. However, the property
owners have agreed to sign pre-annexation agreements in accordance with the City's
policy that would require them to develop to City standards, meet all City requirements,
and upon becoming contiguous to the City limits, annex the properties. The total
cost for the project is estimated to be about $210,000 and if approved by the
Council, he explained that it would be paid for from funds from the 1997 ballot
issue for this purpose. Mr. Patterson reported the issue of connecting to an
existing pumping station has been addressed and the property owners have also
agreed to pay $75,000 for increasing the capacity of the pump station to accommodate
flows from their sewer line.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to
proceed. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by
voce vote.

(E)Neighborhood Response Survey Results
- 1st Ward.
Mr. Beck noted that the Neighborhood Response Team was made
up of various department heads so that a comprehensive survey could be conducted
in the First Ward. He said that Mr. Watkins had been handling that for his office.
Mr. Watkins explained that the City formed the Team in September
and one thing they felt strongly about was the need for input from residents
of the area. He said they developed a one page survey that was hand delivered
to 800 residences in the area. The Police CAT team and members of the Housing
Authority staff distributed the forms. Mr. Watkins noted there had also been
a cover letter from the Mayor and Council Representative Crayton along with a
postage paid response envelope.
Mr. Watkins said a pretty good response was received and it
was felt the City came out well in terms of resident's perception of how adeptly
City functions are being performed. He indicated staff also got a good idea about
what some of the concerns are in the neighborhood.
Ms. Crayton felt that some of the residents that responded
favorably were afraid to say what they really thought. She reported she would
like to see some improvement in her ward.
Mr. Watkins noted that the cover letter stated that staff
would be coming back to the Council with some alternatives and action steps that
can be taken right away to begin to address the concerns expressed in the survey.
He said there were a lot of concerns expressed and he felt it is the staff's
responsibility to come back to the Council with suggestions and alternatives
for addressing them. Mr. Watkins indicated some issues may have a budget impact,
in which case they would have to be addressed in that way, but many of them may
be things that can be done in the normal course of events. He illustrated that
this is just one piece of the assessment process. He explained there has been
greater coordination between the Police Department and the Prosecutor's Office,
and the Health Department and Protective Inspection. Mr. Watkins reported staff
has come up with some ideas for ordinance changes that will make it easier to
enforce specific items. He noted all of those things will be combined as possible
alternatives and will be submitted to the Council.
Ms. Crayton said she realized that the City could only do
so much and that the rest has to come from the residents taking ownership in
the things that are going on in the ward.

(F)Percent for Art.
Mr. Beck said the fire station and the community recreation
center are two of the major capital items coming up next that would qualify for
this program.
Marie Hunter explained that the Commission on Cultural Affairs
and the Standing Committee on Public Art have both indicated interest in the
two abovementioned projects. She said they have asked her office to follow-up
with the Council. Both projects appear to meet the guidelines.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that staff be directed to proceed
with implementation of the one percent for the arts. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(G)Street Name Change within Wellington
Manor Subdivision - Plat No. 1.
Mr. Beck noted that he and Mr. Hancock discussed the continuing
requests for street name changes and the associated costs involved in processing
these requests. He indicated they both felt some of the costs should be recovered.
Mrs. Crockett said she did not have a problem with the cost
being recovered, but said she would like to check into the possibility of having
the staff handle the street name changes so they do not have to come before the
Council.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff be directed to
proceed with the street name change as requested. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that staff be directed to review
the policies on street name changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and
approved unanimously by voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.

COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Campbell spoke about the earlier discussion regarding
an ordinance that would address best practice management in the area of storm
water control by basin/water shed. He noted the staff had said they would like
to have all of the water sheds included so the ordinance could be applied as
needed. Mr. Janku asked if staff would include the Springfield ordinance and
the suggestion to incorporate it.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the staff come back with
an ordinance for Council's review. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and
approved unanimously voice vote.
Mr. Campbell asked the staff to look, in particular, at the
water shed that flows into Rock Bridge State Park.
Mr. John noted that he previously had asked for a report regarding
solutions to improve bus ridership. As the funding for 13 new transit buses has
just been approved, he thought it was important that this report be sent to the
Council.
Mr. John made the motion that the staff be directed to report
back on bus ridership along with information on how staff intended to increase
those numbers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Regarding the Walnut Woods situation, Mr. Coffman related
that the Council received a memo about possibly making available some CDBG contingency
funds for either grants or loans. He wanted to see this pursued.
Mr. Hancock reported staff would have to amend the Action
Plan in order to do that. He outlined the first step would be to hold a public
hearing, however, that could not take place until after being advertised -- which
meant a month from now. Mr. Coffman observed that would not allow the residents
enough time as they have to be out of the trailer park by April 1. Mayor Hindman
asked if HUD has any kind of emergency funding. Mr. Hancock said he would talk
to them about it.
Mr. Janku asked if rental rehabilitation monies could be used
for this purpose. Mr. Hancock said that was a possibility, however, it was funding
they planned to use to address needs in the First Ward. He said they could change
priorities.
Mr. Coffman said he would like to see something come back
at the next meeting. Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff be asked to
investigate getting some CDBG money as quickly as possible and to set forth a
reasonable set of terms for making loans and implementing it after Council approval
at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Hancock asked if the Council wanted to consider loans
or grants. Mayor Hindman felt they should be loans. Mr. Hancock questioned whether
they should be signature loans or if they would be secured by something. Mayor
Hindman thought they would have to be signature loans. Mr. Hancock said he would
just prefer to do a grant, but if the Council wanted to do a loan, he would try
to come up with a process.
Mr. Coffman said most of the residents he talked to were afraid
of getting into anymore debt. He said he would defer to the staff and be satisfied
with any program they could put together to help these people.
Mr. Janku thought whatever it was it would have to be brought
back to the next meeting. Mr. Coffman agreed.
The motion made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Campbell,
was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Coffman said the Walnut Woods residents told him that
some of them had shared their homes with the Southridge residents that were left
homeless by the tornado. He felt this was a disaster on that same level as several
people may be made homeless. He believed there are other City programs that may
be available to help these individuals, i.e., the first-time home buyers assistance
program. Mr. Coffman related that someone had also mentioned the Mediation Services
at the University Law School might be helpful for those people that feel they
have a hardship case they would like to plead.
Mr. Coffman reported he had heard from two Grindstone residents
that are having to deal with relocation or disruption of service due to the new
AC realignment. He said there are many issues for the people who will not have
their property totally taken. Mr. Coffman noted that electric lines are all being
moved to the south side of the street. He explained residents are wondering how
close these lines will be to their homes. Mr. Coffman asked that the staff report
back on what the plans are for the overhead lines south of Grindstone, or at
least ask the staff to work with the residents to minimize the affect on their
homes.
Mr. Janku mentioned that earlier this evening Mr. Bass had
indicated a willingness to work with the City on the issue of green space in
his development. He noted that previously with the Vanderveen property, Mr. Moore
had also indicated a willingness to talk to the staff about the same thing.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff contact Mr. Bass
and Mr. Moore to see what can be worked out and that they report these findings
to the Council. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Mr. Janku noted a change order on the Armory Building would
come up at the next meeting. Included is the issue of painting the exterior of
the building. If the Council decides to proceed with the painting, additional
information would probably be necessary in terms of specific costs. He suggested
referring this issue to the Historic Preservation Commission for their input.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the painting issue be referred
to the Historic Preservation Commission so they can provide their input which
could then be given to the contractor to get a firm bid. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman noted the Council had received a report some
time ago on photo enforcement on red lights. He remembered that staff had suggested
that they not proceed with these efforts. Mayor Hindman felt quite a few technological
advancements have been made since that time and suggested that staff look into
it again.
Mr. Janku remembered there being some question about state
law at the time.
Acting Chief Boehm explained that one of the stumbling blocks
previously related to both state and municipal ordinances. He explained that
in the state of Missouri, as well as in most states at the current time, there
is no provision to allow a traffic violator, the registered owner of the vehicle,
to be held responsible for that traffic violation. Chief Boehm reported his department
would actually have to prove who the driver of the vehicle was. He said the camera
technology available at that time would basically take a picture of the license
plate number, which gives no indication of who was actually driving the vehicle.
Mayor Hindman suggested that the City take a position in trying to get the state
law changed to where the registered owner would be responsible.
Mayor Hindman commented that he had been in San Antonio, TX
and had encountered countdown lights. He explained that when the blinking light
came on it told how long one had to get across the street. He had also recently
seen a story on CNN saying how popular they are. Mayor Hindman suggested the
staff look into costs.
Mr. Campbell stated that at the last meeting he requested
that a temporary stop sign be installed at the corner of Missouri and Rollins
due to the recent street closure. He noted the signs have not been put up yet.
Mr. Patterson said the signs should have been put up today as it was authorized
last week. He indicated he would check into it.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, reminded the Council that not
only are the residents in Walnut Woods in danger of losing their homes. He said
property taxes are one of the biggest problems in the City of Columbia. He predicted
there will continue to be school tax hikes for quite some time -- he thought
taxes would increase to $7.10 when its all over. Mr. Lane asked the Council to
help find other ways to do things in the school district.
Sandra Falcon, a resident of Walnut Woods Trailer Court, had
a list of questions that could not be answered earlier in the meeting. Most of
them concerned JPI Development. Ms. Falcon heard the discussion regarding the
possibility of CDBG loans being made available to help with relocation costs.
She did not believe that was a viable solution as many of the residents are already
in debt on previous loans. She asked what could be done about JPI paying for
relocation expenses. Mayor Hindman explained that JPI legally owns the property.
He noted the appropriate zoning is already in place and the only other standards
they would be obligated to meet related to the land disturbance ordinance and
the acquisition of a building permit. He said those are non-discretionary issues.
Mayor Hindman explained the Council has no authority to prevent JPI from developing
the property. He understood the residents of Walnut Wood have their own attorney
and he suggested they pursue that route.
William Woodward, 200A Unity Drive, asked that the residents
who responded to the neighborhood survey be furnished with a copy of the report.
He also spoke about bus service not being available during certain days/times
during the week.
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.